State v. Warren
| Decision Date | 28 February 1885 |
| Citation | 92 N.C. 825 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. DRURY WARREN. |
INDICTMENT for an assault with a deadly weapon, tried before McKoy, Judge, and a jury, at Spring Term, 1884, of CASWELL Superior Court.
There was a verdict of guilty and His Honor, Judge McKoy, pronounced judgment, as appears in the opinion of this court.
At Fall Term, 1884, of the same court, the defendant was brought before Philips, Judge, under the circumstances as set out in the opinion of this court, and the judgment was given from which the defendant appealed.
Attorney-General, for the State .
Messrs. Graham & Ruffin, for the defendant .
The defendant is charged in the indictment with an assault committed upon the body of W. P. Oliver, with a deadly weapon, and upon the trial of his plea of not guilty, was convicted by the jury at Spring Term, 1884, of Caswell Superior Court. Thereupon he was sentenced to confinement for twelve months in the county jail and at once committed.
There were other indictments against the defendant, tried at the same term, in which he was acquitted, and two sent before the grand jury, one of which was found a true bill and not tried, and the other ignored. The day following the commitment, the defendant was brought into court, when the following judgment was entered in the cause.
“Upon the promise of the defendant that he will keep from getting drunk, and upon his entering into a recognizance to be of good behavior for two years, and to keep sober, the court has agreed to remit the twelve months' imprisonment.
Therefore, it is ordered that the defendant, upon payment of the costs in the case where he is convicted, and the payment of such costs as the county would be liable for in the other indictments where he was tried, and those not disposed of, and entering into recognizance in the sum of one thousand dollars, to be a peaceable, orderly citizen and to keep the peace, and particularly to keep sober, or upon the deposite of seven hundred dollars with the clerk of the court and his individual recognizance for three hundred dollars, conditioned as above, then the judgment for twelve months' imprisonment be stricken out and judgment suspended, with directions to the clerk to issue a capias whenever he shall misbehave or get drunk. If he is made to pay the three hundred dollar bond, he is now under to keep the peace, then, three hundred dollars of the one thousand dollars recognizance is to be remitted.”
The defendant then paid the costs in the several indictments, entered into the recognizance in the required amount, and deposited seven hundred dollars in money with the clerk.
During the time the clerk was directed to retain the money paid into the office, the defendant executed a deed of mortgage conveying a tract of land with condition to secure the same ends, and the mortgage having been given, proved and registered, the money, less the clerk's commission, was repaid to the defendant.
In October the defendant, while drunk, tore the back of the coat of a colored man, and was thereupon arrested under a capias issued by the clerk and put in jail. In a week thereafter he was released on depositing with the sheriff one thousand dollars to secure his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patton v. State of North Carolina
...day). 15 E.g., State v. Lawrence, 264 N.C. 220, 141 S.E.2d 264 (1965); State v. McLamb, 203 N.C. 442, 166 S.E. 507 (1932); State v. Warren, 92 N.C. 825 (1885). 16 See McLaughlin v. State of Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 85 S.Ct. 283, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964), which declares that classification "must ......
-
State v. Calcutt
... ... Under ... the decisions of this Court, it is within the discretion of ... the trial Judge to modify a sentence imposed in a criminal ... case prior to the expiration of the term of Court at which it ... is imposed if the sentence has not been executed. State ... v. Warren, 92 N.C. 825, 827. The power to modify in such ... cases includes the power to increase the sentence. State ... v. McLamb, 203 N.C. 442, 166 S.E. 507; State v ... Godwin, 210 N.C. 447, 187 S.E. 560 ... Devin, ... J., speaking for the Court in State v. Godwin, supra, ... ...
-
State v. Griffin
...thereafter impose additional punishment. 'Nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto'--no one may be punished twice for one offense. State v. Warren, 92 N.C. 825. The superior court in the instant case announced it was entering judgment and proceeded to require the defendant to pay a fine and th......
-
Turner v. State
...499, 53 N. W. 468; State v. White, 130 A. 470, 3 N. J. Misc. R. 1016; People v. Sullivan, 54 Misc. Rep. 489, 106 N. Y. S. 143; State v. Warren, 92 N. C. 825; In re Habeas Corpus (1896) 5 Ohio Dec. 571, 7 Ohio N. P. 604; State v. Cannon, 11 Or. 312, 2 P. 191; Com. v. Mayloy (1868) 57 Pa. 291......